We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: International Partners
Details
Submitted by[?]: National People's Gang
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: July 2089
Description[?]:
| Lodamun leading the way with a commitment to combat poverty. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards giving aid to foreign countries.
Old value:: The government never offers international aid.
Current: The government gives high levels of aid to countries in need.
Proposed: The government gives moderate aid to countries in need.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:32:37, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the International Partners |
| Message | No. We were there before, but yourselves and others decided that we should take the money from our citizens and just give it away. Thus we oppose this movement given that there is a proposal in place to eliminate forcible foreign aid. Can you justify why our tax payers should be made to send some of their earnings to other countries? Remember that if they want to, they can do so voluntarily. |
| Date | 01:37:16, July 28, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the International Partners |
| Message | My other bills on this topic allow for all forms of voluntary international charity, even through the Lodamun government. There is no purpose to this bill except to force unwilling people to contribute. |
| Date | 06:11:17, July 28, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the International Partners |
| Message | I don't understand this, we just passed a proposal, supported by you, to increase the level of foreign aid from moderate to high, why would you want it back down to moderate? |
| Date | 07:09:55, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the International Partners |
| Message | ((My theory)) Equitista feels that a shift to moderate is inevitable. He wants to avoid a shift further down. He is trying to compromise, knowing that if he votes for this, ASP and I will have to support the issue as well(to decrease). This would give him a majority in favor... However, my bills on the matter make it clear that citizens may send as much foreign aid as they wish, by any means they wish to. Therefore, all bills such as this can do, in competition with my "voluntary charity" bills, is propose a system where some are forced to "donate" against their will. |
| Date | 15:10:05, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the International Partners |
| Message | ((A less charitable theory, he is just proposing bills on the basis that these will gain him seats in the next election, win or lose. No consistent policy or ideology involved at all.)) |
| Date | 19:40:21, July 28, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the International Partners |
| Message | ((A number of bills have been introduced immediately after the election which, yet again, contradict bills which were passed immediately before the election. This is just to ensure that should those bills go to vote when say, the IP changes, or a key player says they will be away for a few days, these bills will go to vote as soon as those non-ingame issues are resolved. And there's plenty of time to debate them. But let's keep it IC.)) |
| Date | 01:11:29, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the International Partners |
| Message | ((Keeping it IC)) With a change in power balance in the parliament as selected by our citizens it is reasonable to expect a flood of new legislation to place the laws in the country in line with the campaign platforms of the parties that gained in the election. We have asked various questions of equitista as to why they have opposed various measures, such as tax reduction or nationality being available to all, and have not received even the courtesy of a formal non informative reply. We ask once more why equitista opposes such measures? |
| Date | 04:02:12, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the International Partners |
| Message | We have recently made our positions (on these issues you refer to) very clear. Immediately after that, our citizens nearly double our seat allotment in parliament. Perhaps we missed something, but we find nothing wrong with seeing this as an encouragement for us to begin to accelerate our pursuit of our party's agenda. If we had lost a large amount of our seats(as your party did), we would instead work to water-down and slow down our agenda, as the people would be indicating their desire for this. ((If you have a problem with this, I suggest you vote in favor of the 12 proposal limit submitted in another bill)) |
| Date | 15:17:13, July 30, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the International Partners |
| Message | 8 months later the Equitista party has still not replied. |
| Date | 16:02:16, August 01, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the International Partners |
| Message | And still no reply. Is it suprising that our patience wears thin at times? |
| Date | 18:47:35, August 01, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the International Partners |
| Message | We have no intention of engaging in a propaganda slanging match. If any questions worth answering arise, they'll be answered. |
| Date | 18:59:22, August 01, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the International Partners |
| Message | Which of course means that they will push their position and ignore anything that disagrees with them. A fine way to debate and a total disregard for their duties to the people once again. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 203 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 188 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 59 |
| Random fact: Players are expected to behave in a courteous, co-operative manner and make a reasonable effort to act with the consent of all players involved, even where the rules do not make consent strictly necessary. In particular, players have a responsibility to take reasonable care that other players are not misinformed either about the role-play or the Game Rules. |
| Random quote: "The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it." - Adolf Hitler |